On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 18:01:25 +0200, Jochem van Dieten
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Russ wrote:
> > I did read the docs. The docs state:
> >
> > encoded Optional Yes
> >
> > Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
> > whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
Russ wrote:
> I did read the docs. The docs state:
>
> encoded Optional Yes
>
> Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
> whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
>
> I am using it on a cookie type.
IIRC you can use the CGI type to send cookies as wel
Thanks Andrew, I'll try it. Seems impressive.
Russ
_
From: Andrew Grosset [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, September 03, 2004 11:22 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives
There is an alternative written in c++
http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm
I h
ubject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:05 -0400, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did read the docs. The docs state:
>
> encoded
>
> Optional
>
> Yes
>
> Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
> whether to
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 11:18:05 -0400, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I did read the docs. The docs state:
>
> encoded
>
> Optional
>
> Yes
>
> Applies to FormField and CGI types; ignored for all other types. Specifies
> whether to URLEncode the form field or header.
>
> I am using it on a cook
There is an alternative written in c++
http://www.cftagstore.com/tags/cfxhttp5.cfm
I havn't used it but the claims made on the website are impressive.
Andrew.
[Todays Threads]
[This Message]
[Subscription]
[Fast Unsubscribe]
[User Settings]
[Donations and Support]
: Thursday, September 02, 2004 10:52 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CFHTTP Alternatives
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
> CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:16:17 -0400, Russ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Since CFHTTP support is broken in all versions since CF 4.5 (as in
> CFHTTPPARAM automatically urlencodes all the names and values, and there's
> nothing we can do about it), I was wondering if there are any CFMX
> alternatives to
Dave Carabetta wrote:
> Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case,
> Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large
> WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just not an
> adequate, scalable solution. Time is also a bi
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 09:50:24 -0400, "Dave Carabetta"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Are there any reliable alternatives for using CFHTTP on Unix (in my case,
>Solaris, but migrating to Linux in the near future)? I need to pass large
>WDDX packets to a Python server extensively, and CFHTTP is just
10 matches
Mail list logo
